Category Archives: Notice

First published in A.D. 2003, Cracking The Code is one of, perhaps the, premier book on how to avoid paying income taxes to the IRS. Peter Eric Hendrickson is the book’s author. His wife is Doreen Hendrickson. He seems strong. She does not.

I can imagine that, in court, Mr. Hendrickson would be a formidable opponent but Mrs. Hendrickson might be less focused, less confident, and more easily convicted of an offense.

According to Pete Hendrickson, tens of thousands of people have successfully used the strategy presented in his book to stop paying income taxes. The IRS has not been pleased. So far as I know, the IRS has never expressed its displeasure by charging Mr. Hendrickson with willful failure to file, tax evasion, etc. However, the IRS has successfully prosecuted Mrs. Hendrickson for income tax evasion and caused her to be sentenced to 18 months in prison.

I don’t know what the IRS’s motivation was to prosecute Mrs. Hendrickson, but judging from the following video, her prosecution may have been, at least in part, retaliation against her husband for publishing Cracking the Code.

Black’s Law Dictionary: Almost Every Word has Multiple Definitions[courtesy Google Images]

This is a long article. Over 9,000 words. It rambles in places. I chase down rabbit trails to the right and to the left. It includes some solid information and also some humorous anecdotes. It’s undisciplined and in need of at least two more proof-readings.

Nevertheless, I’ve been fooling around with this article for about two weeks, and I have to draw the line somewhere. I have other fish to fry. More, I believe the ideas expressed in this article may be so fundamental and so potentially powerful, that I’ve got to publish now—even if the text is not as clear as I might otherwise hope.

I think the implications of “Reading is Guessing” are important. This may be one of the most important concepts I’ve ever presented. I hope you’ll take time to read and consider this article.

Definitions

In the past five years, I’ve posted 23 articles that deal with “definitions” on this blog. You can find a list of those articles here: https://adask.wordpress.com/category/definitions/. Definitions aren’t simply useful or even important to the law, they are the essence of the law.

You can’t have law without words. You can’t have words without definitions. Definitions are the “sub-atomic particles” of meaning that turn a mere sound or collection of letters into a “word”. If you want to detonate the legal equivalent of an “atomic bomb” in the courts, start tinkering with definitions.

As former President Bill Clinton once observed concerning the meaning of a particular law, “It all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” In other words, if you want to know what a law says . . . if you want to know what a law is . . . you must first grasp the definitions of each of even the most trivial and innocuous words used to express that law.

Although most arguments seem emotional, classical argument is an element of logic. Logic is an element of philosophy. At bottom, arguments are (or should be) rational.

Who’d’ve guessed, hmm?

There are several varieties of argument. However, in it’s most basic form, argument consists of:

1) Major premise;

2) Minor premise; and,

3) Conclusion.

The classical formula for argument is probably: If A = B, then C. In this example, “A” could be the Minor Premise, “B” could be the Major Premise, and “C” could be the Conclusion. IF the minor premise “A” is equal to the major premise “B,” then the conclusion “C” must be true. If minor premise “A” and major premise “B” are not equal, then the conclusion “C” must be false.

The “argument” takes place over whether minor premise “A” and major premise “B” are, in fact, equal.

Last Thanksgiving Day, a friend of mine was issued a traffic ticket for disregarding an “official traffic control device” on the access road alongside of a highway that was being repaired. The venue of the offense was Hill County, Texas—about 70 miles south of my friend’s home at Dallas. He was assessed $150 for the offense.

The fine wasn’t large, but he nevertheless wanted to fight the ticket asked if I could help.

I told him to send me a photo copy of the ticket he received and I’d see if I could devise some questions to pose to the person or entity that issued the ticket. It was my hope that the “ticket” (being a Notice) would create the recipient’s “right of inquiry” (right to ask questions about the Notice) and the sender’s correlative duty to answer his questions. It was my hope that if such questions were sufficiently insightful, they might slow or stop prosecution. (For more insight into the strategy of posing questions, see the articles posted under the category “Notice” on this blog.)

I told my friend that I believed it was important that such questions be drafted and mailed to the gov-co as soon as possible.

The Cornell University Law School defines “procedural due process” as follows:

“Principle required by the Constitution that when the state or federal government acts in such a way that denies a citizen of a life, liberty, or property interest, the person must first be given notice and the opportunity to be heard.”

Thus, procedural due process consists of two elements:

1) Notice; and

2) Opportunity to be heard.

The “opportunity to be heard” is typically a hearing where you will be found guilty about 98% of the time. Therefore, most reasonable people don’t want the “opportunity to be heard” because it is typically an “opportunity to be sentenced”.

I believe that “opportunity” can be avoided by controlling the notice. I.e., unless you consent to receive only an incomplete notice, the gov-co can’t take you to the “opportunity to be heard [sentenced]” until they’ve give you full and complete notice.

Strangely, my research implies that the notice recipient, rather than the notice sender, controls the express content of every notice. Whenever you receive a notice, you control whether or not that notice is sufficient to allow the sender to take you to the “opportunity to be heard [sentenced]”.

Here’s a video of some legal advice from an attorney who talks faster than I do.

Generally speaking, I’d say this attorney’s advice is solid.

But I have some doubts . . . or at least some questions. If you’ve read my hypothesis concerning Notice, then you know I that I believe the proper to response to any governmental Notice is not: 1) to make statements; or 2) to go silent–but instead, 3) to ask questions.

I’m therefore inclined to suspect that every interaction initiated by a police officer begins with some sort of “notice”. That notice may be the emergency lights on top of the cop car. It may be the officer’s uniform, or the fringed flag on his shoulder. It might be a statement as simple as “I’d like to talk to you,” or “I’d like to ask you a few questions.”

I agree with the attorney in this video that you must not make statements to the police. However, without any supporting evidence, I still have some doubt whether your best choice is to go silent.

According to an IRS website, there are a number of publications that include the term “Federal Income Tax” and/or “federal income tax”.

What does the phrase “Federal Income Tax” mean? I expect that, if asked, most people would agree that the phrase refers to a “Tax” on all “Income” that’s enforced by the “Federal” (Government).

But is it possible that “Federal Income Tax” instead refers to a “Tax” that only applies to “Federal Income”? If so, what is “Federal Income” and who receives it and is therefore subject to the “Tax”?

I’m not betting that any of this speculation is true, but if there were a “Tax” on “Federal Income,” might that “Tax” only apply to whatever “Income” is received as a Federal Employee? If you weren’t a “federal employee,” could you be liable for a tax on “Federal Income”

Given just three words (“Federal Income Tax”) we can find at least three potential meanings.